Kent, responding to Matthew:
> > In any case, I'm still willing to standardize on the phaseless model,
> > even though I think it's flawed.
>> Can I treat this as a change in your vote? If so, it's a magnanimous
> gesture, which I'll gladly accept.
Before I vote, I'd still like to understand the issue.
SRFI 83 doesn't seem to contain a semantics for the
multiphase interpretation. In particular, I can't tell
which references are supposed to resolve to which phase
version of the named identifier.
I would guess that the variables referenced by phase N
code that is not part of the code for a procedural macro
would refer to the phase N versions of those variables.
I would guess that the variables referenced by phase N
code that is part of a procedural macro would refer to
the phase N+1 versions of those variables.
I would also guess that my guesses are wrong. Help?
Will